Shawn | 
June 15, 2009 | 
UPDATE: Lens of Truth’s response to the Ghostbusters Allegations.
“Which version of Ghostbusters get a face full of Ectoplasmic slime, and which one comes out with the clean victory?”
 |
 |
|
 |
|||||||||
| Atari |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Atari | |||
| Terminal Reatily |
1 | 1 |
Terminal Reatily |
|||||||||
| Action | 3.9 gb | 0 mb |
Action | |||||||||
| Release: 06/16/09 | 28 sec | 28 sec | Release: 06/16/09 | |||||||||
| ESRB: T |
Med | Med | ESRB: T | |||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||
 |
Head2Head – Ghostbusters
Length: 00:06:24 Which version of Ghostbusters gets a face full of Ectoplasmic slime, and which one comes out with the clean victory? |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
||
Welcome back for another exciting Head2Head battle! This week at the Lens of Truth we had an amazing opportunity to play the much anticipated Ghostbusters: The Video Game almost a week before the release date. This exclusive was made possible by our folks at Play N Trade (Oviedo, FL) who, once again, let us borrow their store preview copies for this Head2Head. We thank Play N Trade for making this possible, we really appreciate it. If you’re planning on buying this game then you’re gonna want to stick around for this one! The differences will blow your mind, as it did for us and the other 100+ viewers who watched us compare it live last Friday on Justin.tv. Let’s just say that it looked like one game got slimed with 50% less texture quality!
Graphically this was a very impressive game, if you’re playing the Xbox 360 version that is. To start, they both had noticeable screen tearing and both games seem to be in the same ball park with aliasing issues, but that’s were the similarities stopped. The big issue was in the texture quality, and let me tell you it was a huge difference! The texture quality for the PlayStation 3 left us shaking our heads in disbelief. This went beyond the traditional consoles rendering textures differently, as we’ve seen in other Head2Heads, the PlayStation 3 seemed to have ½ the texture quality of the Xbox 360 and in other areas, even less. This was present on all the PlayStation 3 textures, normal maps, spec maps, light maps, etc. even the dynamic shadow maps looked blocky and half the quality of the Xbox 360. To add insult to injury, the PlayStation 3 also had some serious compression happening on their texture maps resulting in banding and blockiness that couldn’t be ignored. One other issue that must be noted on the PlayStation 3 version is the actual game resolution. This is by far the blurriest “720p” game we have seen to date. If we had to guess, Ghostbusters on the PlayStation 3 is running at sub 720p.
We also noticed some effects were missing in the PlayStation 3 version, for example in the game when you fired your proton beam at the environment a burn mark would cover the surface in this black charred texture decal. The Xbox 360 had an extra layer of texture creating a burnt ember effect that looked really cool, especially in dark areas. Whelp, the PlayStation 3 didn’t have it. However, we feel it’s important to mention the texture glitch we found during our capture. At one point during the capture we ended up in an elevator right after a cut scene. As we transitioned from the cut scene to the game the Xbox 360 had some really low res textures displaying. In fact, the texture quality looked almost identical to the PS3’s textures, (without the compression) but as soon as we moved the camera the textures popped in. Now before you get all giddy we also did the same thing for the PS3 and of course it didn’t fix their texture issues. Nonetheless, even with the glitch that only seemed to happen in one area on the Xbox 360 , the Xbox 360 surpassed the PlayStation 3 without a question.
Both games seemed to perform the same in terms of loading, but we had to give the win to the Xbox 360 because of the mandatory install the PlayStation 3 had. Personally, I hate mandatory installs, and I hate it even more when it doesn’t help a game look, play or load faster. The install was approximately 3.9 gigs and took roughly 8 minutes to install.
Roll over to see differences.
Roll over to see differences. Notice the missing shadow cast by Ray on the PlayStation 3.
Roll over to see differences.
Roll over to see differences. Notice the lower resolution dynamic shadow maps on the PlayStation 3.
Roll over to see differences.
Roll over to see differences.
Roll over to see differences.
I was really disappointed in the outcome of this Head2Head. There is no reason that the PlayStation 3 version should have looked this bad. I love my PlayStation 3 and so does the rest of the guys at the Lens of Truth. We’re really baffled by what happened here because I, like many others, were under the impression the game was developed on the PlayStation 3. Why were we under this impression? Because of this little interview that VG247 had with the president of Terminal Reality, Mark Randel. Here is a snippet:
MR : Personally, I want to show off our PS3 technology. We’re one of the few developers who love the PS3 and have a great time with it. We have great technology for the PS3 and we want to show it off.
VG247: Isn’t it the same for the 360?
MR: We’re running the same game for both platforms but if we made a PS3-only game, for example, you could double the amount of objects on screen that you’re seeing. The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3. We’re keeping the game the same over both platforms so we don’t want to take out any features.
VG247: So is the game scaled down because of the limitations of the 360?
MR : For example, we’ve reserved one whole processor on the PS3 for Dolby Digital 5.1 sound whereas on the 360 you have part of one processor to do that. So we can have a lot better sound mixing and a lot more effects going on at the same time. That kinds of makes us do a little bit less in the game [360] but makes for better audio. If we’re doing a PS3 only game however, we could be doing a lot more. We could be pushing a lot more on the screen.
So what happened? For pete’s sake, Sony owns Paramount! Like I said a million times before, Sony needs to step up to these developers. How does EA do it? Fight Night Round 4 was almost identical and there’s no reason why GhostBusters couldn’t have been. Whatever the case, I liked to think we did a good deed playing the game almost a week before the release date. At least I know I would be pissed if I dropped $60 on the PlayStation 3 version and not the Xbox 360. Now if you only own a PlayStation 3 then don’t read this article because it’s still a good game and you’ll have fun with it regardless; but for those who own both systems the winning choice is obvious.
| G R A P H I C S | ||
 |
PlayStation 3 loses by half, literally. The PlayStation 3’s textures were half the resolution as the Xbox 360. Also, PlayStation 3 was quite blurry and seemed to be running sub 720p. Also, lets not forget the missing ember effects and lower resolution dynamic shadow maps. |
 |
| P E R F O R M A N C E | ||
 |
Tie. Both systems showed screen tearing and both were aliased. | |
| C O N T R O L | ||
|
Tie. Controls were exactly the same. |
|
| L O A D I N G | ||
|
PlayStation 3 had a 3.9 gig mandatory install that didn’t change the load times, performance, and most of all, didn’t fix the texture issues. | |
| O U T C O M E | ||
|
Xbox 360 wins this by a landslide. If we didn’t know any better we would have thought the Ghostbusters was developed on the Xbox 360 and ported, poorly, to the PlayStation 3. However all sources indicate the PS3 was the lead, and so you’ve got an issue on your hands. Either someone is lying, or the porting team does better work then the lead team. Don’t believe the lies, buy this game on the Xbox 360. | |
Loading ...
Just a quick reply to some criticisms.
The article is a load of crock? Made by Microsoft? This is fanboyism. You’re suggesting not only that the Lens of Truth (a site I have not visited until today) are going to forge screenshots that will inevitably be proven false, but that they have the technical black magic to force the Playstation 3 to omit shadows, special effects, and full-resolution textures? That’s tin-foil-hat thinking.
However, I do have a theory as to how the PS3 version has been stuffed up. The developers are a bunch of monkeyheaded idiots.
Now, I know that the PS3 is openly hostile to developers. Sony has once again gone for a console that’s intentionally hard to program for, to discourage people porting away from it, just as with the PS2. But that’s no reason to make comments like this:
“The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3.”
.REDRUM
Let’s keep this thinking up. I have seven bicycles, and three dump trucks. Naturally, my seven bicycles can carry more stuff between them.
“For example, we’ve reserved one whole processor on the PS3 for Dolby Digital 5.1 sound whereas on the 360 you have part of one processor to do that.”
I can put a stack of pizza boxes on one bicycle, but I have to use PART of one of my dump trucks to do the same thing! Plainly, the bicycle will make these pizzas taste better.
This isn’t an anti-PS3 rant. If you put the work in, the PS3 is just as good as a 360. Metal Gear Solid 4 looks gorgeous. I’m not hating on Sony, the PS3, or the Cell. I’m hating on idiots.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
XboX360 has: 3 x Symmetrical @ 3.2GHz
Ps3 has: 7 x SPE @ 3.2GHz
Wiki: “Software adoption remains a key issue in whether Cell ultimately delivers on its performance potential. Despite those challenges, research has indicated that Cell excels at several types of scientific computation.”
Learn about processors please, before brining your toys into this.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I hate to break it to ya but, the PS3 has 8 cores. 7 are available to devs. Also the speed is just a portion of what makes a processor run fast and perform better at games than a dif one. You can take a low end Core 2 Duo @2.0 ghz 2mb L2 cache and over clock it to that of a Core 2 Duo extreme and it will still fall short because the extreme has a 6mb L2 cache.
As for the game performance it all comes down to the dev team. This game looks like a 360 port gone bad. PS3 games that are made for the system look pretty darn good. If Sony had not gotten their hands on it and rushed it this might have been a moot thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The PS3 cores are very stripped down basic processors. By theirselves, they are worse than an individual core on the 360 processor by a fair margin. This doesn’t tell you anything about how they stack up though. Programming for 7 cores is no small task. There should be situations where each will come out ahead with proper programming. As much as I want to see the PS3 succeed(competition is always good for everyone), they screwed up by making it so notoriously hard to work with.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
sony also owns the spider-man movies and spidey 3 was far better on 360. ps3’s exclusive level wasn’t butt, compared to the 360’s graphics. i too wanted spidey and ghostbusters on a sony system, but went 360 on both.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sony doesn’t own Paramount, Viacom owns Paramount and Ghostbusters is a Columbia film. Columbia is owned by Sony. Get your facts straight.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Columbia Motion Picture Group—owned by Sony Pictures Entertainment, a subsidiary of the Japanese conglomerate Sony—it is one of the leading film companies in the world, a member of the so-called Big Six. It has no connection with CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System)
both ghostbusters and spider-man were distributed columbia pictures. get your facts straight before you TRY to bash someone you dont know on a forum ya prick
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
where did you get paramount/viacom from? how are my facts wrong?
spider-man 3 official site
http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/spider-man3/
Ghostbusters official site:
http://www.ghostbusters.com/
BOTH are Columbia which is SONY, and has been Sony since 1989
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
paramount?
spiderman 3 and ghostbusters were both columbia. and sony owns columbia kike you said, but paramount had nothing to do with either
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@AthlonBoy
If u didnt know this u will now the PS3 indeed has 7 single core processors. Meaning U have 7 bikes which yes can carry more then 3 bikes. but now lets add that the xbox360 has 3 Dual core processors. So now the PS3 has 7 bikes and the Xbox has 3 bikes that has twice the power of 1 PS3 bike. Then u have to add in the software components of each console and u will realize that yes the PS3 has 1 extra processor making it “faster” but the 360 has better programming. So im not saying Xbox360 is better (even tho it is) im just saying the PS3 is not as great as you think it is.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
What the hell are you talking about? You honestly think the Xbox has THREE processors in it?
Think again (and look it up next time). The Xbox 360 has ONE TRIPLE CORE PROCESSOR. You may be getting hyperthreading confused with dual core, but don’t, because while the Xbox (and many last gen PC’s) have hyperthreading, it’s practically worthless.
The PS3 has 7 cores? Do you realize how ridiculous a system like that would be to cool? I’m not going to respond further to your comment, but please do research so you can refrain from being a moron in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re absolutely right. 7 cores? Psh, he’s crazy! Everyone knows the PS3’s Cell processor has NINE cores. Do your research before you complain that someone else needs to do theirs.
The PS3’s Cell processor has one main PowerPC processor and EIGHT SPEs on it. Each is its own core, although they’re much more specialized and simpler than the main one (which is the only one loosely comparable to those in the 360). One is disabled to improve yields, bringing the count down to eight. Another is dedicated exclusively to the OS, bringing it down to seven. Half of one is also dedicated to the OS, but can be pulled as needed. Regardless, yes, the PS3 DOES have seven cores. They’re just not directly comparable to those in the 360, which has three DUAL-THREADED cores, and yes, the dual-threading IS quite valuable to a skilled programmer.
My point is not to give one system credit over the other, but to point out your own inaccuracies in your trashing of others’ information.
The reality is that the 360 has a superior GPU, while the PS3 has a superior CPU. The catch is the 360’s dev kits are drastically easier to work with than the PS3’s. So the combination of better graphics hardware and easier dev kits leads to differences like those seen in this comparison. A developer who makes the real effort can make either system sing, and those who make effort to truly optimize for each can get around these problems. But for the lazier devs, the 360 gets better results.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Doesn’t stop the PS3 from sucking.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
PS3 = 8x SPEs + 1 PowerPC core.
1 SPE is disabled to improve silicon yields
1 is dedcated to the UI.
that leaves 6 SPEs that need the powerpc core to manage all their code & [split] ram.
360 = 3x core powerpc w/ dualthreading per core. Each thread is logically a fully functioning cpu with it’s own code streams and [uniform] RAM access.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lets have a little processor education:
A triple core processor is 3 physical processor cores in one chip. Not quite as good as 3 actual separate processors, but it’s really not that far off.
Hyperthreading is when you take a single processor core and logically split it’s work load into two or more threads.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t suppose you understand sarcasm. Athlon was criticizing the way the guy was boasting about the PS3’s processors, and stating that just because you have more processors doesn’t mean they are better. His dumptruck/bike analogy was implying that, yes the PS3 has more processors, but the ones the Xbox has are better.
It’s like saying “HAHA I have 7 500 mhz processors but you only have 3 2 ghz processors!” I pulled those numbers out of my ass, I don’t know that the real specs are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I love you, man. :3 You understand exactly what I was saying.
TurboFool and WhiteZero, you two also have your heads screwed on. The PS3 does indeed have 8 ‘cores’ at its disposal, but I wouldn’t call them cores. I didn’t want to get into a long winded explanation, but here goes.
The 7 processors within a Cell are known as Synergistic Processing Elements, or SPEs. Each SPE is quite weak on its own. It also has a bit of local memory to store what it’s working on. Now, some of you may say “ah, that’s cache, like my Core 2 has 4MB of!” but I’m afraid not. Cache on regular processors manages itself, but SPE memory has to be manually controlled by the programmer. More work for the game developer, but theoretically better performance if you do it right.
You have seven of those small SPEs all cooperating together, giving you strength in numbers. They’re attached to a very high-bandwidth ring bus that shunts work around like a conveyor belt. For parallel stuff like video encoding/decoding, Folding@Home and the like, the Cell is monstrous, rampaging over CPUs twice its size. It’s one of the only CPUs that gets close to it’s rated throughput.
But… things fall down when you run a game on it.
The simple truth is, it’s horridly difficult to get a game running on more than one CPU. Only now are we getting to a point where games happily run on two cores. So while having 7 SPEs is all well and good, it’s damned hard to take advantage of them. It’s even worse when said SPEs go against all rational thought with their local-store memory and the like. Instead, developers find themselves putting spare SPEs to use on gimmicks, like playing a HD video on an in-game television. Physics is another good use, but it’s only been implemented for eye candy, really.
tl;dr, the Cell is a supercomputing chip, never designed with games in mind. John Carmack is on record saying the PS3 using the Cell “wasn’t an optimal choice”, and he wrote Doom. (As an aside, he got another company to do the iPhone port of Wolfenstein 3D, but this company left out hardware acceleration and it ran like crap. They said it would double the budget and take two months to program. Carmack got himself an iPhone dev kit and wrote it, by himself, in two days.)
Going back to what TurboFool said, there is indeed an eighth core doing the puppeteering, but it’s much more like a regular CPU core like you find in a PC. I suppose it’s the IBM PowerPC equivalent of an Intel Pentium. The Xbox 360 uses three of these same cores, with SMT (think Hyperthreading) to let them do more work at once.
Three is a nice number as far as games go. Writing for two cores is pretty easy, then you can have the third core manage the dashboard, loading / streaming, and whatever other housekeeping you need to do.
You might have guessed by now that I like to keep up to date with this stuff. Then I come here and see a LEAD DEVELOPER ON GHOSTBUSTERS shat out that “seven versus three” bullwocky. I think a vein popped out on my damn forehead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Could it be that yet again PS3 has gotten a port of a program designed to run on the 360? I have only seen a few games that are the bomb on the PS3 and these are the ones solely designed for the PS3’s architecture. Heavenly Sword, Drakes and more recently inFAMOUS (Which owns over prototype). All the co release games seem to look the best on a 360.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There’s only one thing to ask: Whay did so many people pay approximately 50% more for their ps3 than for an xbox 360, not to mention the games, only to have to realize now that the ps3 version is crap? The developers said they want to show what the ps3 can do. That’s it? Well I won’t be buying it for my ps3 then. I live in europe and that means I won’t be playing the game for some time, but if it’s that what’s necessary to show sony and the devs that I’m really disappointed I don’t care. What a shame.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe 50% of the people wanted a Blu-Ray player free w/ their gaming console???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because people want their consoles to stand up and running for more than a couple of years, without the 3RLoD ghosting their living rooms. It’s a valid reason to me.
Besides that, here in Brazil the PS3 costs R$1300 (~U$650), while the 360 costs R$2300 (~U$1150), almost US$500 difference. Besides, it’s a BD player, has built-in WiFi and I can change the hard drive with any laptop one. Ah, yes, I have to pay NOTHING to play online.
But I am ashamed of this crap GB version, anyway. But it will not make me buy a 360…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I paid less than a hundred bucks more for my PS3, I have a great blu-ray player, a lot of DLC games I LOVE (Fat Princess, Flower, Rag Doll Kung Fu, ecochrome, the list goes on), and some of the exclusive titles made the console worth it (LBP, Valkyria Chronicles, et al). I rarely fire up the 360, the games on that console don’t do anything for me, besides the 3-4 DLC games I bought, and beautiful katamari. So that’s why some of us bought a ps3.
And I think the reality is, most of us own BOTH consoles, so it’s kind of a moot point.
That being said, I think the core issue is that the ported games look worse than native games–which really bums me out, I would like to think I could grab whatever version of a game I felt like (or found used, or traded someone for) and not care, but it’s obvious there’s some issues for some titles between consoles.
This one lays on the shoulders of the developer, who I think everyone is forgetting, have been incredibly champion in releasing a patch addressing the low-quality texture problem.
I think all the super-nerd “it’s 7, no 8, no NINE processors!!!” need to go to hell, you all sound like comic book guy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can we now see a Ps3, 360, and PC comparison, and see the PC kick ALL ass?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The PC version has no Multilayer. The graphics on the PC may be better but the replay value sucks.
You can always upgrade ram, graphic’s cards, etc.. so if we did p.c. comparison what hardware would we need and it would probably change in a week or two to something better. The only way to upgrade a console is to buy the new version.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Exactly Jamie. I mean how much fun is it to check somthing like this every time a game comes out?
http://kotaku.com/5295458/how-well-will-your-pc-run-street-fighter-iv
IMO, not very fun at all. I enjoy putting a game in my PS3/360 and playing.
There’s nothing wrong with PC gaming but most of the time it will cost you more then just the price of the game.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So whats the problem? Yeah it sucks that the PS3 version doesnt look up to par with the 360 but at the end of the day the developer figured out that they are going to move more units on the 360 over the PS3.
From the sounds of your “review” (which sounds more like personal opinion) is that you are taking this personally. Its nothing personal its just business. Yes I know that there are alot of PS3 owners out there but when you take apart the fact of how many are gamers over BluRay owners it cuts it down on the people who want to play actual games.
Your right I agree it has been shown on many occasions that a game can looked very polished on both platforms. But you know what sometimes these things happen. There is nothing that can be done to fix it the game is out right now and people are just going to have to live with it.
It sucks but thems the breaks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your right about the personal opinion. Our main goal is to let our fellow gamers know which game we thought deserved our hard earned $60. Again, your absolutely right, at the end of the day the person buying the game has the final decision. We just want to make sure you get the game you think is worth your money. The reason it became a big deal is for two reasons.
1: This is a timed exclusive for Europe and therefore, the’re getting the PS3 version first.
2: Also, the Europeans were under the impression that the PS3 version was going to be better or at least on par with the 360 version because of what the president of Terminal Reality, Mark Randel said.
Finally we do take it personally. We started this site because we felt we weren’t being told the truth before we bought a game. All of us would go to my brothers house for lunch and do our own comparisons, and most of the time we found major differences between the 2 versions. We couldn’t understand how many main stream web sites failed to mention these differences and how we could see them with our own eyes.
Personally I don’t like being lied to. If a developer has problem with porting a game I think they owe it to their customers to let them know the issues and why.
We know how powerful each system is. We know the architecture is different for both, and we know how good a game can look on them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is exactly why this whole situation with Ghostbusters is driving me crazy.
I own the game on ps3, and I’m actually really enjoying it. I don’t own a 360, so didn’t have a choice between the 2 versions. I’m fine with this.
However, what I’m not fine with is Terminal Reality flat out lying to their ps3 customers by pulling all this “ps3 was the lead console, we’re big supporters” crap, having the game come out as a blisteringly obvious 360 port, and then having the balls to spout a bunch of BS like their latest statement:
“For the record, the PS3 version [of Ghostbusters] is softer due to the ‘quincunx’ antialiasing filter and the fact we render at about 75% the resolution of the 360 version. So you cannot directly compare a screen shot of one to the other unless you scale them properly. The PS3 does have less available RAM than the 360 – but we managed to squeeze 3 out of 4 textures as full size on the PS3.”
I mean, really.
If they admitted that they just weren’t able to get a handle on the ps3 hardware (even with 3 and 1/2 years of dev time) and apologized, that would be one thing. But bringing up things, like the fact that they could squeeze 3 out of 4 textures at full size on the ps3 as an accomplishment? Ok… sure… but getting 4 out of 4 textures full size is basically the norm for developers at this point in the ps3’s lifespan. And that’s with running their games at a resolution equal to the 360 version. I mean, this excuse was tossed around back in ‘06, but to hear it again in ‘09 just makes the developer look bad. Then their comment that they’re rendering at 75% the resolution of the 360 version so you can’t directly compare a screen shot of one to the other unless you scale them properly… would that magically make the texture quality improve? That’s basically equivalent to saying “well, what’s your problem… they’ll both look the same if you just stand further away from the TV and squint your eyes”.
And then there’s: “the fact we render at about 75% the resolution of the 360 version.”
Nice. 75% the resolution is true… if you completely ignore the horizontal resolution and only look at 540 vs 720. So, what we have is the 360 being rendered at 1280×720 and the ps3 being rendered at 960×540. So basically the ps3 version is rendering 518,400 pixels per frame while the 360 is rendering 921,600. 75%? More like 56%.
I mean, that’s just treating their customers like a bunch of morons, and is a piss poor attitude.
I really like the game, am having a great time with it, but won’t be buying another game with “Terminal Reality” listed as a dev any time soon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Ruth
Well said! I really enjoyed reading that. You are absolutely right it’s the principle of the entire situation. There is no reason this should have reached this magnitude and it wouldn’t have if they just were upfront and straight with people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow…. that’s a massive difference. Rolling over the images from PS3 to 360 reminds me of putting my glasses on and taking them off. Seems as if someone didn’t really have a handle on using the SPEs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is anybody really taking this seriously after rolling over the pictures (besides 360 fanboys)? I mean the supposed PS3 version looks like a PS2 game for god’s sake. There’s absolutely no way it could look that bad unless they had it hooked up via RCA cables or set to output at 480 or less. I won’t believe this garbage until I’ve seen them side by side on the same tv hooked up via the same cables with the same output settings. Despite the fact that I own a PS3 and not a 360, I’m not a PS3 fanboy; but I highly disbelieve the quality difference in these pictures. And I know that LoT has refuted this claim; but until they’ve proven it, they stand accused because I can’t see the crappiest PS3 game looking like a bloody PS2 game. On top of that, if the difference is so big, then why aren’t the press ratings so different – the average is 7.9 for 360 and 7.7 for PS3, whoopdy doo .2 points difference. I’m glad one of my associates put me on to this article so I know where not to look for video game reviews.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here are other sources that confirm our findings. We weren’t the only people to come to the same conclusion, just the first.
Kotaku: Does Ghostbusters: The Video Game Look Better On Xbox 360?
Eurogamer Comparison
PS3 Ghostbusters is 56% Xbox resolution, not 75%
There are more, but this should be plenty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Janus:
Thanks for the comment. Unfortunately it’s already been confirmed that our comparison was and is accurate. I feel your frustrations and if you wanted to get news else where that’s your choice, but in the end the truth was here the entire time.
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/17/ghostbusters-on-ps3-lags-behind-360-version-developer-explains/
http://kotaku.com/5294116/does-ghostbusters-the-video-game-look-better-on-xbox-360?skyline=true&s=i
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-20
http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/ps3-ghostbusters-56-xbox-resolution-not-75–$1305034.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Thanks” for the replies guys; but the fact is I know the graphics for the PS3 aren’t “as good” the 360 – my point is that your pictures are incredibly skewed. I mean you can even look at the pictures on the flippin link you posted to Eurogamer and see that the PS3 textures aren’t nearly as bad as the pictures you posted. And obviously I wasn’t the first to come to this conclusion but I wasn’t the only one since you’ve had to defend yourselves repeatedly. End of story – PS3 graphics are worse; but they’re not the PS2 graphics you’re showing in your misrepresentation above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
LoT did their captures through component. It’s entirely possible that Eurogamer did their captures through HDMI with RGB on full and super white turned on.
However, this doesn’t do a thing for the low res textures seen on both this site and on Eurogamer. If you look at the pics on LoT, they may seem a little washed out compared to the ones on Eurogamer. That could be because of the HDMI vs Component. But if you pay attention to the textures specifically (ie the Qbert marquee on the video game in the firehall, or the rug in the hotel) you’ll see that LoT’s pics are showing the same texture quality seen on the Eurogamer captures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Having bought the game on ps3,i can confirm you are correct ……It does (almost) look like a ps2 game….
This is just not on…..
I live in europe…..And the only available version is the ps3 version (at the moment)…
I took it back the next and bought resistance 2 instead …..I shall wait for the xbox360 version in october…
I only wish i had found this website before purchasing…..
It an exellent site,for those that own both machines and want the best version available to them ….
Games are expensive after all …..And i’d like the best experience possible for my hard earned cash…..
Awful,awful ps3 version that shouldnt have been released in this state..
keep up the good work fella’s….Great site
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s pointless to argue. You’ve made your conclusion and we’ve made ours. We’ve done nothing to the original images. We saw what you see. There’s no black magic or trickery just conformation that the PS3 has 56% less resolution then the 360. It’s unfortunate you don’t believe us but you are entitled to your own opinion and I respect that. Besides, you could always run out to Blokbuster and rent the game to see for yourself.
Furthermore, as Ruth mentioned, we capture with component cables as we’ve mentioned countless times. That’s how it been done since the beginning. With that said, it might have a little bit to do with the clarity but not much since the native resolution of the PS3’s Ghostbusters is clearly under 720p. To be exact 960 x 540.
In conclusion. even if the game is upscaled to 1080p it still won’t fix the resolution of the textures. This can only be adjusted with the original texture files. It’s like changing the resolution of your computer monitor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I understand the frustration though. I was one of the original doubters here when this whole thing blew up. But these guys are not trying to pull anyone’s leg. I’m one of those “believe it when they see it” types, and I honestly didn’t believe it until I got my copy home, threw it in, and noticed that besides the better contrast/color saturation caused by HDMI with RGB/Super white, I was seeing exactly the same textures, blurriness, and low res rendering I’d seen in the LoT screenshots.
And you know what, kudos to you guys at LoT. You broke this story first, stuck to your guns and kept your cool when about 75% of the people here were screaming at you, or telling you your tests must have been flawed, or that you were taking payola from MS, or just simply that you were flat out lying. I’d never heard of your site before this whole thing, but you’ve gained my respect and membership, and I’d assume I’m not the only one.
Good job and a tip of the hat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Ruth, I’ll take your word for it since you own a PS3 and the game. And I know what you guys are saying, I’m no technological dummy – I know my inputs, outputs and resolutions very well. I just find it hard to believe that the arcade games for instance, are as blurry as they look in the PS3 version compared to the 360 version in the picture above. The blurriness does not look that blatant on the pics at Eurogamer. And maybe you’re right @Ruth, that they hooked it up via HDMI, though like you said, the upscaling would not help the texture mapping because it is what it is. Like I said, I never said I don’t believe PS3’s graphics aren’t worse; it’s just the degree to which you guys make it out to look like is insane is all I’m saying because it looks like a bloody PS2 game from those pictures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Honestly, I agree with you. It is hard to believe. When I first saw the pics on LoT, I had a lot of trouble believing it as well.
If you’re using a properly set up HDMI rig, what you see isn’t going to look exactly like LoT’s screens, but it’s going to be depressingly close. The washed out look that these pics have is likely do to the component connection, and if you’re playing the game through HDMI, you’re going to be seeing much nicer colors and a little bit less overall softness.
However, as for the textures, LoT is spot on. With the arcade games, notice how you can actually read the “Moonstro” section of the second game with the green marquee on the 360 screen and how it’s fairly difficult to discern the text on the ps3 one? On my setup, it’s absolutely un-readable and just looks like kind of a blobby green texture unless you’re standing in almost exactly the right place… and then it looks exactly like it does in the LoT shot.
Really, the difference between how the game looks (even through HDMI), and the 360 captures seen here is pretty insane.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sounds like there’s no convincing you, but I figured I might as well just throw this in for you. On our defensive page Corey took frames from our Head2Head and frames from GameTrailers and I honestly think our versions of PS3 look slightly better. Tell me what you think
http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=11033
Our intention was to show the differences with Ghostbusters as is our intention with all our other Head2Heads. The entire process to create a Head2Head really takes a lot of time and leaves us no time to go out of our way and manipulate the results, even if we wanted. Although most of the LOT staff has production experience, when it comes to people’s claims of us “photoshoping” images or being bought off, they are really giving us far more credit than we deserve.
Janus, you can believe what you want. A picture says a thousand words, but for some reason none of them seem to persuade you. We still appreciate you stopping by and commenting. Believe us, we’re not here to manipulate the games to persuade people to buy into only one version of a game and we’re certainly not here to piss you off. We’re just a bunch of guys with the same games and consoles as you. Keep up the commenting, and keep coming back. You’re certainly welcomed here and you opinion is just as important as ours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi,
.
I have read all the stuff here and at first when I heard about the Lens of Truth comparison I was really sceptical. But now many sites verified the sadly inferior PS3-Version and I must apologise
But mainly I chose to comment here, because I am very, very impressed how you deal with the accusations and comments here: It is highly professional and about the best community-management I have seen in a long time. I just wanted to say this, since I am writing my Dr. thesis about Internet communities and it is just great to see a team so devoted to their task, doing their thing beyond doubts and still being polite and respectful to the posters.
Go on and know: I never knew your site before, but I am definately coming back
.
André
P.S.: It would be fantastic if you could do a follow up and compare the Xbox 360 version and the PC version of Ghostbusters!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is a total shamble “PS3 is the lead platform” What a load of rubbish you can tell right on these shots its just a 360 port that has gone totaly wrong. This is not acceptable
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Playstation 3 is just a harder system to make games for. The 360 is more user friendly. Blame Sony. Either way, of course they’re gonna be different. If the systems are going to behave the same, what’s the point?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
HAHAH AHAHAHAAAH HHAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
Once again the ps3’s amazing power FAILS to out perform the 360. When will people learn NOT to believe the lies and hype that sells the PS3.
This is why i sold my PS3 and got my first gaming PC. One of the best decisions I have ever made in my life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m going to assume that you’re actually a 360 fanboy who just happened to buy a PS3 for one game, sold it because you finished the game, and now decided to be a dick by promoting your system. I swear, you 360 fanboy pricks act like Microsoft paid you to go “we r teh 1447 pwnzorz and theres nuthing u can do 2 stop us!!!1111oneone!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I also got my first gaming PC this year and it was one of the best decisions i have made too.
My PS3 and 360 are both gathering dust, i have only played my 360 a couple of times since i got the PC and I couldnt care less about the PS3 because i never enjoyed it anyway. I always thaught PCs were expensive until i looked into it more and managed to find someone to build one for me, it ended up costing me just over £450 all together. thats less than i paid for my PS3 and it blows the PS3 away x100. There are so many amazing games on PC that i have never even heard of on console, even some of the really old PC games are more fun than the PS3 was and iv played games that are 5 years old that look better than some 360 and PS3 games. there are literally hundreds of thousands of games to choose from on PC its unbelievable i had no idea. No more consoles for me im 100% converted to PC now.
Seriously anyone who is fed up of consoles and all the arguing over wich one is better, just get a gaming pc and i promise you will not be sorry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A PC is great and all, but you’ll be missing out on some of the best games. Games like Uncharted, Batman, Gears of War, MGS, God of War 3 just to name a few.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Shinya:
Get a life you piece of garbage.
It’s people like YOU who give the PS3 a bad name! Wanna know why? Cause people realize what a bunch of IMMATURE and CHILDISH PS fanboys there are (yup… pointing my finger at you. Mommy’s calling)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am sorry but it does not look no where near as bad as everyone is saying for crying out loud. It reminds me of the SNES vs Genesis days when people made a big deal over little things that in the end didn’t matter as much as people made them out to be. So it has lower resulution textures, big deal, the overall graphics are comparable enough and even the two screan shots yes look different, but not that much different. I am sorry but people are making this into a bigger issue than it is. Trust me as a Wii owner I envy both Ps3 and 360 owners.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I LOL’ed at all of the denial of the PS fanboys. Face facts, the 360 is the better machine for multiplats. About 95% of them are a total joke on the PS3, & it’s been that way ever since the PS3’s launch.
I own both systems, & this is one of the reasons why my PS3 only gets used for exclusives & Blu-Ray now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I hate to say it but from what I’ve seen I’d have to agree. That or they are pretty much even.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah, right. You didn’t even read the whole thing.You know what? I’m not going to waste anymore time on you. You just go on & keep believing the hype & false promises from Sony about “4D Graphics,” “True 1080p,” “Untapped potential,” & all of that other gibberish.
The fact remains clear that X-Box systems are much better than Sony’s systems in multiplats, & that it has been that way ever since the PS2 & X-Box 1 days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In your opinion. By the way, YOU are blind for believing that PS3 is superior to 360 in every way. Let’s see here:
Multiplats: 360.
Online: 360.
Controller: 360.
Better Graphics card? 360.
Better Disc Read Speeds? 360.
Does the 360 need mandatory installs on just about almost every game like PS3 has? No!
These are not opinions, THESE ARE PURE, COLD HARD FACTS!
What does PS3 have? Almost zip. Just exclusives & Blu-Ray. Ever since the PS3’s launch, both 1st party exclusives & multiplats on the PS3 doesn’t even sell well on it! Plus just about every 1st party exclusive for the PS3 can also easily be done on the 360 in far less time, & possibly, even better. Plus all the nonsense name calling just makes you look stupid & foolish, & on top of that, a worse, pitiful fanboy that just won’t accept the fact that you just bought yourself an inferior console. Get a life AND a friggin’ clue!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I AM on reality, sir. Seriously, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You just keep on believing on what you believe. The facts are out there, everywhere, point blank. The only thing that the PS3 has are exclusives & Blu-Ray, & that’s it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
People, don’t feed the trolls. I can’t believe I have to say this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
just thought id check out this artical and like one of the guys above i think the sight is ran by good folk who take it on the chin and respond well….this game is another example of game industry lies miss truths and hype and childishness 1,they gimped ps3 FACT….2 THEY super gimped wii 480p is resolution NOT graphics and iv seen the ps3 version running and yes iv seen batter at better framerate on wii YET Wii gets a ps2 ported art direction and a load of ANTI Wii properganda lies OH WE CARNT DO IT SO WE USED PS2 GRAPHICS AND KIDDY ART DIRECTION….so explain resident evil 4 rouge sqod 2/3 etc ON GAMECUBE NOT Wii ah-hhhmmmm devs/publishers the wii version could look and run better than the ps3 version plus its better controls BUT Wii GET PS2 LOW BUDGET PORT insted the gimped ps3 version and the gimed before it got a chance wii version is yet more evidence of the games industry being ran by children and idiots…..before a insane and outa touch ps3 fan biatch rants at mii PLEASE CPMPARE TRUE Wii games to a lot of ps3 afair i.e haze vs prime 3 wii wins on graphics framerate loadspeed and kills ps3 haze for controls i just qauted a FACT (before u talk spec nonsense ps3 fans) again prime 3 vs ps3 ghost busters vs prime 3/mario galaxy or even cod waw Wii
ps3 ghost busters looks like crap wii ghost busters looks high ressed ps2 as thats all it is as there was no true wii budget BECAUSE 3RD PARTYS ARE DUM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
you are all gay
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ps3 fans no ones bating you its a fact it runs like poo on ps3 its not a ps3 bash its a dev/publisher bash the ps3 cannot magic poor code into good code
“!!SO GROW UP!!”" THE GUYS HERE ARE SIMPLY INFORMING YOU OF THE FACTS…..
like i informed everyone of some industry and wii facts DONT LIKE FACTS WELL POST A RESPONCE OF OPINION AS WE ALL NOW LIVE IN A OPINIONATED AGE “”"SADLY”"
why are facts so vigorously attacked if this thread was about rain would you then attack clouds GROW THE HELL UP
what a lot of x360/ps3 fans thru market brainwashing dont understand is a lower resolution can be a great thing wen the efficiency it offers is put to good use….
imagine the latest 10gtexel gpus heavily optermized for 480p rather than high resolution the bandwidth/fillrate/AA would be insanly high then simply super resolutiuon and scale to 1080p
please see thru marketing hype hd and graphics are different things and theres more than one way to skin a cat
to put it into layman’s terms cgi like visuals at 480p vs haze on ps3 at 1080p witch would look better and again cryses at 480p vs quake 3 at 1080p witch would look better DID I JUST PROVE A POINT I THINK I DID
HD is not graphics smoke and mirrors dont fool me tv/gpu/console makers etc
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, honestly, I don’t mind a comparison, I own a PS3, and I believe this article, I wasn’t going to buy this game anyways, but it is a good thing to show which is better for people who can afford both consoles. What makes me mad is when ppl try to bash other ppl for enjoying something they didn’t, for example xbox shitting on ps3 owners, and the other way around. In my opinion, I don’t like most multiplatform games in the first polace, if u name the best games for each console, at least for me, most are exclusive to btoh. I bought the PS3 because I enjoyed MGS, FF, most square enix games, and other games previously on the PS2. On top of that, I think I would prefer the ps3 as a better media hub than the 360, but again, i am not bashing the 360, halo and gears of war are highly enjoyable. So once again, voice ure opinions but don’t attack other people for enjoying something they bought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I gotta go with the PS3 version, even though this article seems to say otherwise. I love this game! Also been watching The Real Ghostbusters on DVD, love that show.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Who You Gonna Call?
Ghostbusters: The Video Game
Read my review here of this REALLY GREAT game!! – http://www.gamespot.com/users/ghstbstr/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25695556&tag=all-about;blog1
The best game comparison ever.
I have the Xbox360 and PS3 versions of Ghostbusters: The Video Game and this comparison on this site is exactly how the versions are.
I want more Head2Head game comparisons!
Keep up the great work guys.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
lol developer officially stated that this is a fake. most of the shit here are fakes, lens of fakes lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here are other sources that confirm our findings. We weren’t the only people to come to the same conclusion:
Kotaku: Does Ghostbusters: The Video Game Look Better On Xbox 360?
Eurogamer Comparison
PS3 Ghostbusters is 56% Xbox resolution, not 75%
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This game is fun at first but gets too repetitive imo. That, and I wish there was more upgrades that were somewhat usefull.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Atari had just released a patch for this game, fixing the resolution on the PS3 version.
Atleast now the PS3 version doesn’t look like vomit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok GREAT, ill get the 360 version. Looks like a fun game too. Cant wait to play it..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL! You’re really getting dumb & dumber as you type. At least I know what I’m talking about. Go look up this site, read the reviews, & tell me which is the better platform for multiplatform games.
http://misterslimm.wordpress.com/360-vs-ps3/xbox-360-vs-ps3-head-to-head-face-off-results/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hey, why don’t you pull that ps3 out of your ass and go do something productive
>:(
Like or Dislike:
0 
0